On May 27, 2012, BBC News ran a photograph purportedly showing victims of Syrian violence. There was only one problem: it ran a file photo from Iraq in 2003. The picture actually depicted an Iraqi child among lines of body bags that had been found south of Baghdad. The headline on the BBC News story: “Syria massacre in Houla condemned as outrage grows.” The photo itself carried a caption explaining that it was “believed to show the bodies of children in Houla awaiting burial.”
Well, somebody believed that it showed the bodies of children in Houla awaiting burial. It just wasn't true that it was a photo of that. In the Clintonian world of "it all depends on the definition of 'is'," this is technically true, but materially false, but that's good enough for the administration. Now, do we want to bomb Syria based on that kind of "truth"?